Wel hell, who said that international commerce is so important? The idea is to be indipendant as much as possible- if we have almost everything we need we are less vulnerable to the whims of others.
Also , no-one said we have to do trading like that, but let`s not forget inflation, tax hikes and all that bull that happens now- look how much basic things almost all of us can not afford- home- land- ect. Hell, I can`t afford anything at the moment, haven`t had enough to buy clothes for maybe 2 years. I just get by like a good little slave.. F### THAT S###! I will not yield to having the same damn system that has turned almost all of us into slaves.
There is no question that current monetary systems are unacceptable for any WN territory.
(Nothing personal, just have to make that clear)

You are assuming I am against it: I find it interesting because nonmonetary systems have their own problems. Some of those problems are severe enough to have caused people to come up with another means of accomplishing exchange. I also said because of politics, I don't believe nations should worry over comparative advantage.

As far as the other, I am sorry for your situation. Have you considered doing something else for a job? It's not enough for us to survive, we must thrive. It is who we are. If not who we are now, who we should strive to be.

I'm not sure what the motivation for this thread is but I assume it is not pro international banker or pro stock market. Both are subject to manipulation. I think it inevitable that any society will need an accounting system for worth. Some members will contribute more than others and some will contribute intangibles such as a standing unengaged army or future worth such as scientific research. There must be a way to account for their worth.

<snip>

The economy is extremely complex and the blood of the economy is monetary value be it hard currency or credits. The problem is keeping the dishonest and the "overly ambitious" out, which requires regulation. Regulation requires government, which is corruptible. As the system wort\ks today, the amount of honest economic play relative to total economic play changes over time and is cyclic. The key is to hold our government, bankers and markets accountable to the public. God help us.

Go back to where money started, in Asia Minor/the Middle East. The idea is to efficiently expropriate surplus, which allows for the modern state with its priesthood (today paper-shuffling bureaucrats), and army. This is where the foundations of the state lie. Without surplus extracted from the populace, the state collapses. These standing armies are what allowed states like Babylon and Sumer (and Lydia?) to overrun other societies, other more backward states, and establish the world's first empires. These empires -- then as now -- serve aristocracies (today global financial elites), which exist in parasitical relationship to the people at large. My point in discussing this is to see if it's possible to have WN communities that break out of this millennia-old model, into something more fulfilling for the mass of (white) people. The problem is that if one group of people organise themselves into a state, everyone else also has to -- otherwise they will be overrun and decimated.

The economy looks complex because of the deliberate mystification surrounding it, with armies of professional economists, with their arcane mathematical symbols and equations, employed to this end. But the basic purpose of the modern economy is no different to that of more primitive money-based economies three or four thousand years ago: the extraction of surplus for an elite.

Free trading communities and societies can have simply book-keeping arrangments where they note who owes what for whom. If I take a sweater off you, but don't have the lumber immediately available to give you in exchange, we can record the fact that I owe you (so much lumber). This will not be "legally binding," as hopefully there won't be any courts, but just so that we don't forget. The system -- based on racial homogeneity (hey, it's got to be good for something) -- will run on goodwill, and not the suspicious, paranoid legal structure our multi-racial and multi-cultural societies presently employ.

As far as I'm concerned, all this talk about "growth rates," and "technological advancement" is so much bunkum. The majority of people -- both in the West and in the "Third World" -- are in many sense actually worse off than before, and the benefits have accrued to a small privileged elite -- the Gnomes of Zurich. We need to go back to a simpler way of living, even if those professional liars (aka economists) tell us that it is more "inefficient."

Go back to where money started, in Asia Minor/the Middle East. The idea is to efficiently expropriate surplus, which allows for the modern state with its priesthood (today paper-shuffling bureaucrats), and army. This is where the foundations of the state lie. Without surplus extracted from the populace, the state collapses. These standing armies are what allowed states like Babylon and Sumer (and Lydia?) to overrun other societies, other more backward states, and establish the world's first empires. These empires -- then as now -- serve aristocracies (today global financial elites), which exist in parasitical relationship to the people at large. My point in discussing this is to see if it's possible to have WN communities that break out of this millennia-old model, into something more fulfilling for the mass of (white) people. The problem is that if one group of people organise themselves into a state, everyone else also has to -- otherwise they will be overrun and decimated.

The economy looks complex because of the deliberate mystification surrounding it, with armies of professional economists, with their arcane mathematical symbols and equations, employed to this end. But the basic purpose of the modern economy is no different to that of more primitive money-based economies three or four thousand years ago: the extraction of surplus for an elite.

Free trading communities and societies can have simply book-keeping arrangments where they note who owes what for whom. If I take a sweater off you, but don't have the lumber immediately available to give you in exchange, we can record the fact that I owe you (so much lumber). This will not be "legally binding," as hopefully there won't be any courts, but just so that we don't forget. The system -- based on racial homogeneity (hey, it's got to be good for something) -- will run on goodwill, and not the suspicious, paranoid legal structure our multi-racial and multi-cultural societies presently employ.

As far as I'm concerned, all this talk about "growth rates," and "technological advancement" is so much bunkum. The majority of people -- both in the West and in the "Third World" -- are in many sense actually worse off than before, and the benefits have accrued to a small privileged elite -- the Gnomes of Zurich. We need to go back to a simpler way of living, even if those professional liars (aka economists) tell us that it is more "inefficient."

I think the system can be simplified certainly and especially get rid of the parasitic elite and manipulators. What I suppose we are both envisioning is a society that is closer to that Utopian extreme...but after all, Who is John Gault!

Not neccesarily.
What is needed is a system whereby we do not create unneccesary waste, and a system that is steady, fair and not controlled by a minority of individuals and thus not corruptable...

It's sometimes very difficult to tell what 'waste' is, given that a) the future is unknown b) the corporation works OK for non-profits, but is badly broken for for-profits.
Suppose farmer Brown owns a (combustible) barn. He's worried that one day the barn will catch fire and burn down, inflicting tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages. Like most modern people, he probably pays a little money an insurance company, and expects the insurer to pay him a lot of money if the barn does burn down. I can't tell whether such insurance is a waste of money. E.g., if the barn does burn after many years, and the money he gets from the insurance is less than what he's paid over the years - or if it never burns down at all - was it a waste, or did he pay for taking away the volatility - for knowing that his cash flows will be 'steady' as you nicely put it? I don't know.
Suppose farmer Brown's farm is a for-profit corporation. Unlike a monastery, whose mission is vague and non-quantifiable - something about the good of the community, that cannot be measured in money - this artificial person's mission in life is to make the most money for its owner. Let's say, the farmer has to decide whether to install a water filter (which would cost money) to reduce the fertilizer contamination from the runoff from his farm to the nearby creek which isn't 'his'. He has no choice really - his fiduciary duty, as a corporate officer, is to damage the environment and let someone else pay for it. Likewise, if a for-profit corporation can earn more money by screwing its employees, hiring illegal aliens, importing foreign guest workers, or exporting jobs to another country - they're obligated to do all these things.
FInally, coming back to comparative advantage - suppose farmer Jones thinks he may be able to grow better and/or cheaper string beans than farmer Brown. Under free markets, he grows the beans and challenges row to a competition - one will win, another will lose in the marketplace, and some string beans and fertilizer will be wasted. Under central planning (which is what a lot of lefties who make noises about comparative advantage secretly long for), a bureaucrat in Washington DC or in Moscow will officially determine that Brown' string beans are the best and will ban Jones from even trying to compete with Brown because that might lead to waste.
Please note again that I have no answers, just quetions for which I don't have satisfactory answers, and don't pretend to.

Location: Europe.....the sacred ancestral homelands of every white man, woman and child. Our desecrated poisined home... :,( We must secure and heal it

Posts: 400

Re: A society without money?

Provided we all keep discussing this problem we are atleast doing something about it.
OK, now I do realise that everyone has different ideas of what WN will look like- personally mine is based on permaculture- thus fertiliser runoff is non-existant. Though I realise it was used for explanatory purposes and also that everyone may have different ideas.

Perhaps we need to elaborate more on how the society and environment in which this new system would run.
As said before I am against communism because it tries to equalise what is not equal- it destroys excellence and empowers trash, and many other reasons.
However, though I have only the initial understandings of socialism would that work better? I do not fully understand these systems to be honest.

I think that government should have minimal role and only as much power as is neccesary- no more, no less.

One of the problems with current western systems is this blame and compensation culture, if a ban were to burn down then it burns down- men can rebuild it and they will want to because without it they suffer without it`s benefit. It needn`t have middel men making fat profits nor schemers trying to work out how they can best benefit.
Our people have survived for thousands of years without such bull.
I say let folks deal with things the most sensible adult way, not wrap them in cotton wool and nanny them, that kind of thing leads to emasculation and dependence.
It disgusts me to see that. I want independance and to eb free godsdamnit, and I want my people to be free too.

So anyway, I am just agreeing that social structure may be a key to this.

Well, bartering would be difficult, because you wouldnt be able to save your money at all, it would be very difficult to survive in this modern society on a barter system.
As far as a tab goes, in a way a currency is simply an IOU. It is a standardized IOU that anyone will accept, rather than just the person who gave it to you. In this way it is much simpler. (Hows that for economics boiled down to its simplest state?)

The basic fundamental behind economics (and many other social things) is scarcity.

So the question becomes: Can we efficiently allocate scarce recourses without money? I think the answer is clearly no.

So the question becomes: Can we efficiently allocate scarce recourses without money?

This question immediately begs for another one - why is the efficient allocation of resources the goal?
For example, a man whose goal in life is to maximize his "disposable income" shouldn't marry (unless he marries a woman much richer than him) or father children. But the happyness that some people derive from their families has no dollar equvalent.
If a charity or a monastery or a school (run as non-profit corporations) considered efficient extraction of monetary profits as their goal, they'd usually shut down and stop "wasting money".